That Aud Smell

Aannnnnnnd, I'll tread super lightly here, but I will add that the use of the word "ignorant" in this particular context struck me. Based on my experience living in the Boston area (admittedly half a lifetime ago), that word is sometimes as a bit of a coded term, not unlike how "thug" gets used. Mind you: I don't think Eichel would intend to use the word that way, whether consciously or subconsciously. But local lexicon has a way of seeping into your cortex.

I felt as though Eichel came off as a humourless cement head. Lighten up, Francis. Ramsey's a brash sh1t talker. He's basically playing a WWE/F character who's in the middle of the ring with a mic. Nathan MacKinnon (sp?) got it right. I can't find his comments at the moment, but he got that it was just stuff and nonsense -- to be laughed at, if anything.

Sorry - I'm mostly here for the lulz

I think when you say his full name in a super nasal, super whiny voice, you have your answer.

I'll wait to see how the season plays out. I still think the middle of the table will cause trouble for some of the big clubs. But, yes, it is a troubling trend. It's an indication of how capital always, always tends to consolidate power (unless it is acted upon in a way intended to impede or retard that inevitable process). Maybe? There's just too much talent there to really stink it up. I've heard this. Maybe the USMNT can time a hiring of the guy to ensure qualification.

More recently, I saw that Francis was urging silence and prayer in response to these allegations. I dunno, man. I think he needs to address the claims in some way. The sad thing is, it seems clear that everyone in Church hierarchy - Francis included - is having a very churchman-like response to this dust-up. They all seem to know that this is not about the atrocities committed against children and the vulnerable, it is a play for power. Which frustrates the sh1t out of me.

The question's been posed before. Who/what gets more points this season -- the Sabres or Eichel? (I realize it's apples and oranges, but, whatever. It's fun.)

In the sober light of day: This was not a good moment for me. The song is still not in my top 5 for the band, but it is obviously a singalong anthem.

For my money, their worst greatest hit.

EXCELLENT ANALYSIS. The NFL QB Name Theory is sorta like the band Journey for me: Do I love it ironically or genuinely? Hard to tell sometimes.

Arguably, Carson Wentz could cause the whole theory to topple. Fookin’ Wentz! Matt Ryan isn’t a great name, but it’s sufficiently solid. Sorta like the player. All of these names are solid or better names. FACT.

Not sure what that means, but I’ll wait for you to identify a great QB who didn’t have a name to match. Then I will graciously accept your apology.

FACT: There’s never been an NFL All Pro QB who didn’t have at least a *solid* sounding name (and a super majority have objectively cool names).

I may have a generational bias on the name Josh Allen. It *could* work. But Nate Peterman is a trusted accountant, not an NFL QB. Yeah, no thanks.

(I went looking, didn’t readily find anything.)

The hell’s going on in here? Peterman named the starter. The Name Rule for NFL QBs decrees that Nathan Peterman can never be a decent player at the position. Josh Allen is borderline, imo.

Fair deuce. They probably feel like they've got a few different paths available to them -- and maybe much depends on what Brees is doing, in terms of health and contract demands.

His value will be higher if/when a starting QB for a contender goes down. My question is why the Jets didn't see fit to hold onto him until then. It might have to do with wanting to make straight the paths for Darnold. Well, wait a second. Their signing of Bridgewater looks super shrewd at this point. Spend a few bucks, get a 3rd round pick.

That's my sense. The Jets were ready to part with him at this point and a 3rd sounds good. The Saints must be looking to move him mid-season, and get a 1st or multiple 2nds.

No bueno.

The Church needs heroes, for sure.

Yes, yes. That's true. And fair. But, for present purposes, you do need to cut the cancers out. And then keep identifying and cutting them out. And then: Getting women and laity into meaningful positions of leadership is the only way forward for the RC Church.

A tangled bit of business, that. Chelsea's been good so far, yeah?

I think one of Francis's chief failures as a pope has been his inability to get his head wrapped around the nature and extent of the sexual abuse problem in the RC Church. But I think he's shown signs of being able to learn and admit mistakes. Which country was it - Chile? - where he initially expressed skepticism over claims of abuse and then later came back with a big ol' mea culpa. There have been several Chilean (?) bishops who have resigned in the wake of the allegations being investigated and validated. I'm really not sure what to make of the Vigano stuff. It feels political. For my own part, I want every last one of the abusers and enablers out on their fuc.king ears. Out. Get the fu.ck out of my Church. There's a natural, almost inevitable fraternal sense of loyalty that priests develop for each other -- it's not unlike what cops experience (blue wall of silence, etc.). So many priests end up with a sense of superiority over lay people. A sense of entitlement because they sacrifice so much (and, honestly, so many of them do). Anyway, priests often become "churchmen" -- devoted first to the preservation of the mother Church's order and hierarchy. Well, fu.ck that sideways. Time for change, motherfukkers. I don't begrudge anyone who feels differently -- that the Church's culture of abuse and enabling abuse is a bridge too far -- but, for my own part, I have such a stake in the thing that my reaction is to tell them to get out -- I don't want to leave because they're there. They are like intruders in my home.

GTFO. Really?! Christ. No wonder he incurs those high ankle sprains.